We Are Better Than This

[Marc Linquist + 63]

3 hours ago, Red said:

Your idea has no basis in science. 

See post above.

3 hours ago, Red said:

 There are thousands of papers in the literature which explain what is happening now and what has happened in the past.  In fact you have - above - used charts from Richard Alley who explains AGW more succinctly than most climate scientists.  Here's Richard in greater detail presenting why your ideas do not stack up (if you go to the link, skip the first 20 minutes and take special note of dot point 3 on the slide at 21:50). 

  And there are thousands of papers that attempt to describe the geology and climate of the planet, now and in the past, some without even any mention of plate tectonics, that are in direct disagreement with so many others.  The reason Dr Costa-de-Moura appreciates my idea is that it is so broadly self-supporting through so many predictions of observations in both geology and climate. What you need to understand is that there are a multitude of contradictions throughout geology and climate that cause so many ideas to be in conflict with so many others. A great hypothesis is one that can remove as many of these contradictions as possible. That is what Plate Tectonics was able to do in the 1960's. Now there are many more contradiction again due to the amount of newer observations since then, and climate is just one of hundreds that have not been unified under one main theory.

So this is what this is about.  So many people have all of their emotions riding on just one of these horses (almost all on climate change) it goes well beyond science, it's about political power to most people, while I have my efforts on the bigger prize, the idea that solves these multitude of contradictions in geology and climate. And that is why Dr Costa-de-Moura is so supportive of it. 

I am more than certain of it's accuracy simply because of it explanatory power, it covers our current warming quite robustly and takes care of some of really big unanswered mysteries in geology. 

[Red + 252]

18 minutes ago, Marc Linquist said:

Now there are many more contradiction again due to the amount of newer observations since then, and climate is just one of hundreds that have not been unified under one main theory.

Climate affects many fields of science and is not contradictory.    Moreover, as climate is largely about physics (with a bit of chemistry tossed in), it follows basic principles rather than needing to have any actual theories.

Again, I have no idea what you are getting at with respect to present climate as you seem to have offered nothing of relevance.

[Marc Linquist + 63]

1 hour ago, Red said:

My point is that not much you said seems credible.  I cannot find any climate papers that support your views.

You have no explanation for the present warming trend, and that is where most posters here keep coming up short.

You won't find anything for a while because a model that utilizes a strain energy displacement has never been applied to mantle dynamics. I have looked for years, probably read a thousand research papers and never found anything close. A physicist told me a few years ago it was; "A really good idea".  Dr Costa-de-Moura offered to help me get it rewritten to professional standards to get it possibly published in a journal, I said I would keep going like this for awhile longer and see what happens. I have plenty of time and I'm anxiously waiting for the solar magnetic energy level to drop to see what happens next. I have been reading geology papers for many years now and the newest observations that come to light in them most always widen the gap between the standard model and them instead of closing it. 

Funny how a trained and published scientist like Dr Costa-de-Moura believes it does explain the current warming, who do you think is more credible? You or him?

 

Edited June 2, 2019 by Marc Linquist

[Red + 252]

25 minutes ago, Marc Linquist said:

....who do you think is more credible? You or him?

Given you have never offered an explanation, I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

22 hours ago, Red said:

The fact that only one one-billionth of the sun's total energy output reaches our planet sounds almost as meaningless as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which is a bit more than 400 parts per million.  Yet those figures are largely responsible for the climate we experience.

The natural flux of the carbon cycle was only impacted by humans since the industrial revolution.  Your maths overlooked the fact that the entire change in levels of atmospheric CO2 is due to humans.  We can measure this isotopically, so we know the increases are not "natural."

We know which gases have a "greenhouse effect" and we know the planet has been on a warming trend as a result.

If you want your ideas to be taken seriously, you should try to link to actual science.  Your idea about water vapour, for example, fails a simple test of logic.  For water vapour to increase its forcing effect it requires more heat.  Water vapour is therefore a "feedback" as it cannot of itself increase global temperature.

Dude, that's not MY idea, that's the IPCC POSITION! If you knew what you were talking about you'd know that. THEY call it forcing, not me. But thanks for playing. Thanks also for proving you're not as up on the "science" as you're pretending. 

Some homework for you

https://notrickszone.com/2018/05/17/6-new-papers-climate-models-are-literally-worth-zero-even-water-vapor-feedback-does-not-exist/

Edited June 2, 2019 by Ward Smith
Added link

[Marc Linquist + 63]

16 hours ago, Red said:

Given you have never offered an explanation, I have no idea what you are talking about.

(Science) is built on a foundation of earlier discoveries, and the cooperation between individuals involved in the various fields. If you had bothered to read my hypothesis you would have seen how it is built upon the work of many researchers who I have given utmost respectful consideration of.  Dr. Alley is a remarkable researcher and scientist and I would offer up that he could care less "who's side wins" in this whole controversy, but only that the natural world is accurately described.   

Edited June 2, 2019 by Rodent
inflammatory

[Red + 252]

11 minutes ago, Marc Linquist said:

You don't seem to be able to find something even remotely substantive to say. I would suggest you learn how science actually works. 

You said you have "debated" this topic, and offered no debate at all.

You posted copiously about your predictive model.  The problem is that your model which, is predicated on sunspot counts for temperature variations, requires that we should now be in a "cooling" trend, as evidenced from the table below.

 There is no data which shows the planet is in a cooling trend.

[Red + 252]

47 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Dude, that's not MY idea, that's the IPCC POSITION! If you knew what you were talking about you'd know that. THEY call it forcing, not me. But thanks for playing. Thanks also for proving you're not as up on the "science" as you're pretending. 

Some homework for you

https://notrickszone.com/2018/05/17/6-new-papers-climate-models-are-literally-worth-zero-even-water-vapor-feedback-does-not-exist/

I use science to explain climate, and only frequent denialist websites when I want a laugh.

You somehow think that the IPCC is one thing.  It merely synthesises the best climate science available, and presents it in a manner which allows governments to determine the state of play, and challenges ahead.

 

[Marc Linquist + 63]

2 minutes ago, Red said:

You said you have "debated" this topic, and offered no debate at all.

You posted copiously about your predictive model.  The problem is that your model which, is predicated on sunspot counts for temperature variations, requires that we should now be in a "cooling" trend, as evidenced from the table below.

 There is no data which shows the planet is in a cooling trend.

I said our climate has been warming, you seem to be arguing with yourself again. Every claim you have made so far has been completely inaccurate, its almost comical that you can't even repeat back what I have written here. Again you seem to misunderstand that the sunspots are the proxy for the solar magnetic energy level.

  The actual sunspot number does not matter at all. If you had read the model you would have understood (probably not) that the energy transfer mechanism is mutual inductive coupling between the magnetic fields of the Sun and Earth, the Sun being the primary inductor and the Earth responding with proportional magnetic field strength. That is what is shown in those two graphs earlier, the synchronization between climate temps and solar magnetic energy levels indicates that the thermal expansion of the Earth's core from the increased amplitude of solar magnetic induction had displaced the mantle and produced a strain energy thermal content at the crust mantle boundary. This thermal content is immense in proportion to the oceanic and atmospheric systems and can quickly (within a century or two) produce the atmospheric warming seen in reactive state.by the graph using Alley's data.  

This is also why the solar magnetic energy is synchronized to the Japanese earthquake record and indicates that the strain energy displacement is real due to its timing, and more important, its proportional response. The earthquake strengths and numbers are proportional to the solar magnetic energy levels, which are proportional to the climate temps.

What do you think the odds would be that all of these proxies would align so perfectly and not be connected? This has all been shown to you in these two pages. Here they are again just a few graphs and you can see how the Sun's field generator, the Earth's field generator, the earth's mantle, earthquakes at the edge of the largest oceanic plate, and climate temperature, are all so nicely synchronized to each other.

These are called predictions of observations, they are the primary goal for any hypothesis.

And now maybe you can understand why Dr Costa-de-Moura appreciates its abilities to accurately describe the natural world.   

[Red + 252]

2 minutes ago, Marc Linquist said:

If you had read the model you would have understood (probably not) that the energy transfer mechanism is mutual inductive coupling between the magnetic fields of the Sun and Earth, the Sun being the primary inductor and the Earth responding with proportional magnetic field strength.

This is scientific nonsense from you.  There is no such mechanism capable of transferring less energy when it in fact should be transferring more.

You can keep repeating your posts, but they are  irrelevant to climate science.

Here's how your logic works:

You said, "Again you seem to misunderstand that the sunspots are the proxy for the solar magnetic energy level."  However, in the very next sentence you say, "The actual sunspot number does not matter at all."

If you use a proxy and then say it does not matter, then it's not a proxy.

At least now I understand what I could never understand from you - so many thanks.

[Marc Linquist + 63]

2 minutes ago, Red said:

This is scientific nonsense from you.  There is no such mechanism capable of transferring less energy when it in fact should be transferring more.

You can keep repeating your posts, but they are  irrelevant to climate science.

Here's how your logic works:

You said, "Again you seem to misunderstand that the sunspots are the proxy for the solar magnetic energy level."  However, in the very next sentence you say, "The actual sunspot number does not matter at all."

If you use a proxy and then say it does not matter, then it's not a proxy.

At least now I understand what I could never understand from you - so many thanks.

And the paper tiger dissolves away in the rain. 

1 hour ago, Red said:

I use science to explain climate, and only frequent denialist websites when I want a laugh.

You somehow think that the IPCC is one thing.  It merely synthesises the best climate science available, and presents it in a manner which allows governments to determine the state of play, and challenges ahead.

 

 I guarantee you do not know what science is, or how to use it. I'm glad everyone has been able to enjoy this.

 There is a certain type that chooses a group or a side to be part of only because they feel that they will have the advantage, a poorly perceived advantage, to bully others in what they think is a position of intellectual safety supplied by others. Their safety though is only conditional on the merits of the position itself.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3 hours ago, Red said:

Climate affects many fields of science and is not contradictory.    Moreover, as climate is largely about physics (with a bit of chemistry tossed in), it follows basic principles rather than needing to have any actual theories.

Again, I have no idea what you are getting at with respect to present climate as you seem to have offered nothing of relevance.

Hogwash.

In essence, you are stating yet again that your theories about global warming are "settled" as well as "proven" science, and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

You can twist words into pretzels all you want, but from what I see again and again and again in your comments on this forum Red is your glaringly obvious assumption that anyone who disagrees with you about climate is wrong and / or stupid.

Any actual science which is presented here that disagrees with your theories are disregarded by you as incorrect or irrelevant.

Piss poor "science" on your part.

I grow weary of Climate agenda scaremongers preaching their climate armageddon to the oil crowd simply as disruption to a forum dedicated to oil.  Shilling.

As a moderator, I am unable to ignore your comments here.  The "ignore user" filter does not work for moderators, and it is getting pretty annoying that I cannot filter your endless climate comments, which I view as spam.  You can filter me, I cannot filter you.  It's like having the spam filter on my Microsoft Email disabled.  Spam filters can be useful.

This is not about freedom of speech.

Red, your endless parroting of climate theories and refusing to allow anyone to disagree with you is spam.  

[Red + 252]

3 minutes ago, Marc Linquist said:

 There is a certain type that chooses a group or a side to be part of only because they feel that they will have the advantage, a poorly perceived advantage, to bully others in what they think is a position of intellectual safety supplied by others.

Perhaps there is.

But I carefully read what you had and it has - at very best - marginal relevance to anything in climate science.  And that is where sunspot activity does correlate with temperature trends for some periods.  However, that correlation no longer exists, and nothing else you presented affects climate.

Finally, I clearly pointed out that your claims lack logic.  On this matter from you I won't paste further replies.

[Red + 252]

14 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

In essence, you are stating yet again that your theories about global warming are "settled"....

I do not have any theories.

15 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

...and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

They are free to present the science which supports their claims.

 

16 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Red is your glaringly obvious assumption that anyone who disagrees with you about climate is wrong and / or stupid.

I do not care about your opinions, especially when they are claim things which I know to be false.

 

17 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Any actual science which is presented here that disagrees with your theories are disregarded by you as incorrect or irrelevant.

Why repeat things which are not true?

 

17 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

I grow weary of Climate agenda scaremongers preaching their climate armageddon to the oil crowd simply as disruption to a forum dedicated to oil.  Shilling.

You have never made a claim that has merit on this topic, so why do you keep adding more irrelevances?

 

18 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Red, your endless parroting of climate theories and refusing to allow anyone to disagree with you is spam

Again, not my theories.  

Perhaps rather than make false and irrelevant claims, present something about what is being contended.

I carefully read Marc's link. I checked it against everything I could find and it made no sense.  I  linked to Richard Alley whose charts were used by Marc, and Richard Alley clearly said that the ideas Marc was presenting were not important drivers of climate.  Despite this, and the lack of logic which I have shown in his posts, Mark believes his model is really good.  He is welcome to that view,  but he will never gain any traction from the climate science community.  

[Marc Linquist + 63]

1 hour ago, Red said:

This is scientific nonsense from you.  There is no such mechanism capable of transferring less energy when it in fact should be transferring more.

You apparently believe you have discovered an exception (theory) to the laws of thermal dynamics,  GOOD FOR YOU !!!  

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

1 hour ago, Marc Linquist said:

You apparently believe you have discovered an exception (theory) to the laws of thermal dynamics,  GOOD FOR YOU !!!  

Marc: Red NEVER reads past a headline and does not know how the physics work.  Worse, he refuses to teach himself yet claims he is all knowing.  In a different thread after posting him links to read regarding how Sunspots affect magnetic field of sun/earth/cosmic rays, he like clockwork replied, "WRONG!" and then posted more links back... In his link he posted back(all of 3 lousy pages) was quoting ONE of the papers I had posted him which stated unequivocally that 50% of the warming from LIA was due to the sun and how it interacted was still not completely known.

Life is short man.  Use it accordingly

[James Regan + 1,776]

@Douglas Buckland It seems your thread is being held hostage in typical fashion can the moderators not set up a special place for those with a single agenda can reside In order to keep the focus as it’s actually trolling.

Infiltrating any topic with a narrow mind is disruptive and easily brings down the debate which inevitably ends in pages of personal insults.

I am guilty of taking the bait but when you see the same people pushing their agenda the point comes when they will set the hook.

After lasts weeks thread of shale oil breakeven we managed to circumnavigate the oil industry and ended up near Armageddon.

Maybe this is debating and I’m not an experienced debater so I may be wrong.

👌🏻👌🏻

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

53 minutes ago, James Regan said:

@Douglas Buckland It seems your thread is being held hostage in typical fashion can the moderators not set up a special place for those with a single agenda can reside In order to keep the focus as it’s actually trolling.

Infiltrating any topic with a narrow mind is disruptive and easily brings down the debate which inevitably ends in pages of personal insults.

I am guilty of taking the bait but when you see the same people pushing their agenda the point comes when they will set the hook.

After lasts weeks thread of shale oil breakeven we managed to circumnavigate the oil industry and ended up near Armageddon.

Maybe this is debating and I’m not an experienced debater so I may be wrong.

👌🏻👌🏻

 

@Rodent to the white courtesy phone please.

[Okie + 83]

5 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

In essence, you are stating yet again that your theories about global warming are "settled" as well as "proven" science, and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

Tom:

I don't know how you explain all those glaciers melting.  You can clearly see it if you were to travel to Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Antarctica and Patagonia.  The one constant appears to be an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  That is linked to excessive burning of oil and other hydrocarbons.  The fact that this affects your industry, oil, is irrelevant to the science.

The greatest scientists have concluded that we must reduce the use of oil, coal and other hydrocarbons to prevent a runaway system that will take place over the next century, and that it will reach a tipping point if we don't act quickly.

Furthermore, actual mean temperatures are rising faster than the "worst case scenario."  Which is why they are alarmed.

It would be better for the world if we adapted to these facts and changed our energy mix.  The fact that you will make less money, or even lose money, is irrelevant to that fact.

Fortunately, we are making rapid advances in other energy creation systems and storage.  I know you said that this is a "pro-oil" forum, but the question of the greater understanding of the science behind how the climate is warming gives oil investors better information regarding the risks to their oil-based investments.

Some people are more interested in the truth of the matter than in confirming their bias in favor of oil.

[James Regan + 1,776]

36 minutes ago, Wastral said:

You mean all those glaciers that melted before 1950 and have only slightly melted since then? 

What caused the earth to cool to begin with to MOVE those glaciers to their LIA extent from Patagonia, New Zealand to Alaska, Alps, Greenland etc?  Hrmm?  You know, if you are a scientist you MODEL the past first, not the future.... Answer that Question before blaming humans for anything... But no.... you can't, because NO ONE truly knows yet people like you claim you KNOW the future?  #*$(#$()#@*(#())##!!!!!!!!(*)##)()#$($()$()(#)#()#

Try science(try observing and modeling the past).  Come back when you can model the past, even from 2 decades ago.  Problem: you can't and neither can all the super computers around the world. 

What happened 18,000 Years ago, or did it all change in the last 500 years?

some interesting facts in the link. But it’s probably “Fake News” or people with a different agenda!!!!!!!

http://www.metatech.org/07/ice_age_global_warming.html

[Marc Linquist + 63]

1 hour ago, Okie said:

Tom:

I don't know how you explain all those glaciers melting.  You can clearly see it if you were to travel to Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Antarctica and Patagonia.  The one constant appears to be an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  That is linked to excessive burning of oil and other hydrocarbons.  The fact that this affects your industry, oil, is irrelevant to the science.

Hey Okie, 

I have no connection to any oil interests other than changing it in my car when it is due. But I am pretty much hooked on figuring out scientific mysteries connected to geology. 

1 hour ago, Okie said:

   The greatest scientists have concluded that we must reduce the use of oil, coal and other hydrocarbons to prevent a runaway system that will take place over the next century, and that it will reach a tipping point if we don't act quickly.

Furthermore, actual mean temperatures are rising faster than the "worst case scenario."  Which is why they are alarmed.

And you have found the key evidence right there. The tip of the iceberg or glacier so to speak. I went to Yellowstone a few years back and took the north road in that winds its way up the side of the range that the park is nestled into. Looking from the amazing vista at the top, down into that glacial valley, we could see that we had just drove up, westward, through the middle of what looked like a tiny thread of a road in the middle of a massive remnant valley, leftover from the reseeding glacier that was now barely visible far off into the distance to the N.W. I could see in hundred miles the story of that valley and the glacier that carved it.  I tried to make out the places that it may have possibly marked with some kind of evidence the position it had held its ground on like a moraine of bulldozed debris, but then realized, it is now moving back from its positions it held during The Little Ice Age and that the great markers that I had hoped to find like the Roman Warm and Medieval Warm Periods were farther up still, behind where it was now sitting. At the end of the last glacial period some 14,000 years ago that glacier extended all the way past where I had stood, and on still further to the distant east, cutting that massive barrel shaped valley. So why would it be unusual for a glacier to recede back to the positions it had been only a short time ago? 

When a model is incorrect about its predictions of warming, whether it is too fast or to slow, doesn't matter, it is incorrect in either case and is equally incorrect, and not just wrong on the slow side and closer on the fast side.  faster than the "worst case scenario." is still as big of a miss.

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

11 hours ago, Red said:

I use science to explain climate, and only frequent denialist websites when I want a laugh.

You somehow think that the IPCC is one thing.  It merely synthesises the best climate science available, and presents it in a manner which allows governments to determine the state of play, and challenges ahead.

IPCC’s CO2 Climate Forcing Values 200% ‘Too Sensitive’, Water Vapor Feedback ‘Does Not Exist’

Ollila, 2018

“The temperature effects of the water and CO2 are based on spectral analysis calculations, which show that water is 11.8 times stronger a GH gas than CO2 in the present climate. … There are essential features in the long-term trends of temperature and TPW [total precipitable water], which are calculated and depicted as mean values 11 years running. The temperature has increased about 0.4°C since 1979 and has now paused at this level. The long-term trend of TPW [total precipitable water] effects shows that it has slightly decreased during the temperature-increasing period from 1979 to 2000. This means that the absolute water amount in the atmosphere does not follow the temperature increase, but is practically constant, reacting only very slightly to the long-term trends of temperature changes. The assumption that relative humidity is constant and that it amplifies the GH gas changes over the longer periods by doubling the warming effects finds no grounds based on the behavior of the TWP [total precipitable water] trend. The positive water feedback exists only during the short-term ENSO events (≤4 years).”

“The validity of the IPCC model can be tested against the observed temperature. It turns out that the IPCC-calculated temperature increase for 2016 is 1.27°C, which is 49 per cent higher than the observed 0.85°C. This validity test means that the IPCC climate forcing model using the radiative forcing value of CO2 is too sensitive for CO2 increase, and the CS [climate sensitivity] parameter, including the positive water feedback doubling the GH gas effects, does not exist.”

“The CO2 emissions from 2000 onward represent about one-third of the total emissions since 1750, but the temperature has not increased, and it has paused at the present level. This is worthy proof that the IPCC’s climate model has overestimated human-induced causes and has probably underestimated natural causes like the sun’s activity changes, considering the historical temperatures during the past 2000 years.”

“The RF [radiative forcing] value for the CO2 concentration of 560 ppm is 2.16 Wm−2 according to equation (3), which is 42 per cent smaller than 3.7 Wm−2 used by the IPCC. The same study of Ollila (2014) shows that the CS [climate sensitivity] parameter λ is 0.27 K/(Wm−2), which means that there is no water feedback. Using this λ value, equation (3) gives a TCS [transient climate sensitivity] value of 0.6°C only. This same result is also reported by Harde (2014) using the spectral analysis method. …There are both theoretical- and measurement-based studies showing results that can be explained only by the fact that there is no positive water feedback. This result reduces the CS [climate sensitivity] by 50 per cent. Some research studies show that the RF [radiative forcing] value of carbon dioxide is considerably smaller than the commonly used RF value, according to the equation of Myhre et al. (1998). Because of these two causes, the critical studies show a TCS [transient climate sensitivity] of about 0.6°C instead of 1.9°C by the IPCC, a 200 per cent difference.”

[Okie + 83]

https://relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/environment/2019/03/one-part-of-greenland-ice-growing

Even though one glacier is growing, Greenland is still losing ice overall.  One glacier extending does not change the warming trend.

[Marc Linquist + 63]

1 hour ago, Okie said:

https://relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/environment/2019/03/one-part-of-greenland-ice-growing

Even though one glacier is growing, Greenland is still losing ice overall.  One glacier extending does not change the warming trend.

Agreed, I have said that there is currently a warming trend.

  Now, by looking at historic Co2 levels it is clear that; The Roman Warm and The Medieval Warm Periods were not caused by that particular greenhouse gas. Nor does The Little Ice Age appear to be little more than casually connected in some way, instead of through a causative deficiency of Co2.  So, I would then suggest looking for a alternate explanation of those earlier warm periods, and a model that could explain these transient temperature changes would have an advantage over the model that proclaims to explain just the most recent warming only.

Agree.

   Now, I have in these few pages showed all who are interested, a correlation between all of the warming and cooling trends going back 11,400 years with the solar magnetic proxy measurements that spanned the same time period. And then further, to verify the validity of the proposed mantle displacement mechanism, I then also correlated the solar magnetic energies to the mantle by way of the Japanese earthquake records that are specifically timed to The Little Ice Age and this most recent warming period in both timing and intensity.

So, the model that works the best does not rely on a one specific observational measurement of greenhouse gases but a much broader (time period and types of data) then just the Co2, that now appears, even more then ever, not to be associated to The Roman Warm and Medieval Warm Periods, and now, not even this most recent warming period.

  

Edited June 2, 2019 by Marc Linquist

[Rodent + 1,424]

7 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

@Rodent to the white courtesy phone please.

Hello, you have reached the oilprice mailbox of Rodent. I can't come to the phone right now, but if you leave your name and number....

Good God, Tom! I'm a moderator not a miracle worker!! 😁

The next person to surprise the heck out of me by responding to someone else with an opposing viewpoint in a respectful manner (maybe try imagining debating with your dad on a subject over which you disagree, for those of you who are lacking in the social graces department) will get a good sport medal. 

The next person to carry on as usual with your bratty digs will find themselves escorted out of here at least temporarily. 

Please remember that we have a substantial number of lurkers who come to oilprice for information and debate. As evidenced by data that shows which threads are most popular, most people are not interested in these climate pissing contests where posters are more concerned with being right than sharing information.

It is my duty (and only duty) to maintain an environment (no pun intended) that is welcoming to the many people who visit the site. I will do as I must to make that happen.

As for the question as to whether we can set up a special place for certain posters, I think not, at least to my knowledge. Not sure how that would work. It would be great if everyone could just put on their big boy britches for a moment to consider that their approach might be off. 

No one is reading these threads and going "Aww man! Why didn't I think of that! Clever chap!" 

Instead, it's probably more like, "Aww man! What an #$_&-$$#!" 

Meanwhile, back at the climate.....